A win for the Democrats in the 2006 election would be a loss for not just the Republicans, but Americans in general. If you're one of those who think Democratic control of Congress will only last for two years -- and that the Republicans will rediscover their Conservative roots while "wandering in the wilderness" -- you haven't thought the matter through. If the Democrats take control, they will take steps to entrench their position by expanding their voter base, none of which will be good for the country... and the effects of which could last a decade or more. That's not "fear-mongering," that's taking a serious look at what Democrats could do to ensure they keep their hold on power, using threats of holding up legislation and blocking nominees to get their bills passed.

It's certain that Democrats will raise both the minimum wage and taxes. All they really have to do is sit tight and let the Bush tax cuts expire. NY Representative Charles Rangel, who will chair the Ways and Means Committee if Democrats take the House, has said he "cannot think of one" of Bush's tax cuts worthy of renewal. Higher taxes won't affect "the rich," at whom high taxes are supposedly aimed -- they'll simply pull money out of their investments and tuck it away where it can't be taxed. The poor don't actually pay income tax, leaving those who make money -- but not enough to hire expensive tax accountants -- to pay ever higher taxes.

Investor pullouts will cause the stock market to drop, taking a toll on retirement funds like 401(k)s. Consumer confidence and spending will fall, while interest rates and inflation rise. Companies will have to lay off employees and raise prices to keep showing a profit. The higher minimum wage will accelerate the layoffs as small companies struggle to stay afloat. Larger companies will relocate more of their operations abroad to save money. The middle class, which will have to shoulder more of the higher tax burden, will begin to shrink, increasing the gap between rich and poor -- and leading to more demand for government support and income redistribution. Unemployment will rise, the welfare rolls will once again increase, and so the Democrats, by playing the old "Republicans want to stop your benefits" card, will gain voters for the 2008 campaign and beyond. Those who are dependent upon government handouts will almost always vote for the politicians who promise to continue or increase them.

Democrats frequently attack Wal-Mart, one of America's largest employers, for its lack of unions and healthcare plans -- ignoring the fact that Wal-Mart employees consistently vote against unions, and that Wal-Mart offers a healthcare plan at a reasonable per-month cost. Forcing the retailer to accept unions would be a great coup for the Democrats, as a huge percentage of mandatory union dues inevitably find their way to fund Democratic campaigns. The Democrat-controlled Maryland legislature, for example, recently voted to force Wal-Mart to pay for expensive health insurance for its workers, a union-driven move designed to make signing a union agreement (despite the wishes of its employees) look cheap. The unions -- with the help of their old partners, the Democrats -- would expand their Wal-Mart corporate union campaign to the rest of the country. Naturally, Wal-Mart would have to increase employee wages in order to comply with union demands... which would lead to store closings, layoffs, and even more unemployment and welfare recipients to swell the Democratic voter ranks.

As for the law, Democrats like Senators Clinton (NY), Kerry (MA) and Boxer (CA) would push their bill to grant felons the vote. People who have decided the laws of our country don't apply to them shouldn't have a hand in changing them. Democrats would also refuse to allow any more Federal Court judges -- or Supreme Court Justices -- who believe in following the Constitution to take the bench. Activist judges would "discover" the rights for felons to vote, and for voters to do so without having to show ID.

The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that gave what amounts to total amnesty as well as special privileges to illegal immigrants. It would have allowed all current illegal immigrants to stay in America while awaiting legal status, after which they could bring in their extended families. It also included no provision for making workers who would come to America under its vaunted "guest worker" program return home when their time was up. The Senate bill, if signed into law, would have resulted in up to an estimated 100 million new immigrants over the next twenty years -- far more than we could possibly assimilate in so short a time. Only the Republican majority in the House of Representatives prevented this nightmare from becoming reality, with their staunch insistence on an "enforcement first" bill. HR 4437 (passed by 92% of Republicans, opposed by 82% of Democrats) insisted that the government try to stop the flow of new illegals before dealing with those already here. The House Republicans also issued a flat refusal to consider blanket amnesty. If Democrats take control of the House, that barrier will vanish like mist, and the Democrats will have a flood of uneducated, largely ignorant new low-class workers to turn into good little Democrat voters, all demanding a piece of the government pie.

Democratic control of Congress could last for years, crushing this country under the burden of nanny-state social programs paid for with ever-increasing taxation upon the only productive members of society. Soon, like most of Europe, we could be mired in a demi-Socialist hell as jobs are guaranteed by the government, causing corporate reluctance to hire new workers, leading to a permanent underclass of angry unemployables with whom the dwindling group of Old Americans can't even communicate. The only way any party could win back control of the government would be to move as far Left as they can, in order to capture those votes. Even if Democrats lose Congress again in a few years, the damage will have been done -- benefits and rights granted are almost impossible to take away. Conservatives will no longer have a party at all. We might not even have a country.

And when people complain about what America has become, my response will be, "Did you vote in '06? Did you 'teach the Republicans a lesson' by staying home? Then you got what you wanted."

If you're looking for some Halloween viewing suggestions, check out thirteen of my favorite horror movies.

A Stir of Echoes (1999)
Dismissing this creepy film as a copycat of "The Sixth Sense" would be a mistake. Kevin Bacon is haunted by visions like an itch in his head that he can't scratch, which lead him to a terrible discovery.

Alien (1979)
The crew of a deep-space mining ship are awakened from suspended animation to investigate an alien distress call, only to find out too late that the message was not a call for help... but a warning.

An American Werewolf in London (1981)
Two American tourists in England are attacked by a wolf. One survives... and finds that his subsequent dreams of hunting on all fours are unfortunately real. The twist here is that a werewolf's victims haunt him, urging him to commit suicide.
 
Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter (1974)
A somewhat campy, yet cool, cross between spaghetti Western and horror. A traveling vampire slayer and his faithful assistant arrive in a European village to deal with a youth-draining vampire. The trick is that each type of vampire can only be killed in a specific way. When one of the victims "turns," Kronos and crew must experiment with various methods of killing him until they find the right way to kill the master vampire.

Carnival of Souls (1962)
After surviving a car crash, Mary's life begins to take a surreal turn, as nightmares become ever more indistinguishable from reality.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)
In this sequel to Night of the Living Dead, a group of survivors take refuge in a shopping mall. As in the first movie, it's the relentless, single-minded tenacity of the undead that make them scary.

Event Horizon (1997)
Seven years ago, the ship Event Horizon disappeared into a self-created black hole during a secret trial of its new propulsion system. The last transmission heard was a garbled warning in Latin, of all things. Now the ship has returned, but where has it been... and what unspeakable evil has befallen the crew?

Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Barbara visits her father's grave in rural Pennsylvania, never dreaming that the recently-dead are returning to life. She and a few survivors barricade themselves in a remote farmhouse against the growing horde of undead. They're slow-moving, but relentless... and very hungry.

Pitch Black (2000)
A ship full of passengers, including a captured criminal on the way to face justice, crashes on a remote desert planet with three suns. The survivors must work together, pinning their hopes on an abandoned ship at an old mining station. But if the ship was abandoned, where did its crew go? It turns out that the planet is not as devoid of life as it seems... rare night is approaching... and the criminal holds the key to their survival. 

Rosemary's Baby (1968)
When Rosemary and her husband moved into a new apartment, she had no idea that she was about to become pregnant... or that her new neighbors would have an unholy interest in her child. Right up to the the end, the viewer doesn't know whether she really is living in a nest of Satanists, or is just going mad. "Creepy" doesn't even begin to describe this movie.

Suspiria (1977)
An innocent American girl enrolls at a German ballet school, and becomes ever more entangled in a nightmarish world of witches and demonic influences.

The Exorcist (1973)
When a young girl's apparent mental disorder begins showing symptoms like telekenesis and speaking in tongues, her mother is forced to face the truth: her daughter has become posessed by an ancient demon. Let me just say that, of all the horror movies I have ever seen, the crab-walking scene in The Exorcist was the only one that nearly made me leave a theater.

The Wicker Man (1973)
A police officer travels to a small Scottish island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl, but no one seems to have heard of her -- not even her mother. He begins to suspect that the entire island is covering up for a murder... but the truth is far worse, as the investigation becomes a clash between the modern policeman's Christianity and the ancient pagan cult to which the villagers belong. Note: Make sure you get the "director's cut" full version of the film, not the 84 or 88 minute versions.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out 50 Favorite Horror Films Of All-Time at RightWingNews.

As many times as those who support the struggle in Iraq have tried to explain its place in the context of the larger War on Terror, reason and facts have failed to make an impression on Liberals. Unfortunately, as many of us have found, one cannot hope to convince using logic people whose worldview is based on emotion. Perhaps drawing an analogy might do the trick.

Iraq, it seems, was like the plug in the kitchen sink.

Most bachelors eventually come face to face with the dreaded kitchen sink. It's not something you plan on. After a period of living alone, you come to the realisation that no one is going to complain if the dishes are not washed immediately... so, you don't. You put them in the sink, but never really make the time to wash them, somehow. *

You start to feel a little guilty about not washing them, usually about the time your last dish hits the sink and you start using paper plates. So you run some hot water into the sink, and pour in some dish soap. Got to let them soak a little, right? Only...they keep on soaking, the suds disperse, and eventually the water drains, leaving the dishes looking even dirtier than ever. So you run some more water, and pour in some more soap. To let them soak.

After a while, the water doesn't drain out as fast as it once did. The sink doesn't look all that bad, though, especially if you throw in some fresh soap from time to time. The surface of the water looks calm, and as long as you can't see more than shadowy shapes beneath the filmy, sudsy surface, you don't have to deal with them. One of these days, of course, you will...but not right this minute. It's such a big job now, after all, and there's other things that have to get done.

One day, when you least expect it, you get hit by the reality of your kitchen sink. Maybe you spot a cockroach. Perhaps your girlfriend comes over to watch television and eat Chinese takeout, but screams and runs out after going into your kitchen. You might find a note from your landlord threatening to call the Health Department, after he came in to test the smoke alarms while you were at work. Sure, you can always kill the bugs, take the girlfriend out to dinner from now on, and bribe the landlord. But that's not going to make the problem go away. There's no more procrastinating... you have to clean the sink.

So you buy some of those thick Playtex gloves, scrub pads and a bottle of industrial-strength anti-bacterial dish soap. You consider a gas mask... but how bad can it really be? Answer: really bad. The first thing you have to do is reach all the way to the bottom of that mess and pull the foul, slimy, crud-encrusted plug out of the drain. Until you do so, all that filthy water is going to stay right where it is. Only then can you run the water as hot as it gets, pour in the soap, and start scrubbing... holding your breath for as long as you can before turning your head to breathe. You could swear you've never eaten anything purple and green... so how'd it get on your dishes? That gas mask sure looks like a good idea now, doesn't it?

The Middle East became something like that sink full of dirty dishes -- ignored for years, as long as it looked calm on the surface. Yet beneath the water, out of sight, filth was growing and disease was brewing. We spotted not one, but nineteen cockroaches on 9/11. The Left just wanted to clean the single most visible plate -- Afghanistan -- and stop, but that would have done nothing to fix the problem. Iraq was the plug holding the water in place -- Saddam acted as a block to Iran's ambitions, while enabling many of the worst terrorists and terror groups in the Middle East. His removal has caused movement in the region at last -- as Iran gets aggressive, at least some Arabic countries are finding that they fear Persian domination more than they hate the West. The work is dirty and foul at first, as the dishwater drains, but necessary to cleaning the area. Just look at all the dead terrorists swirling around Iraq's drain... something the "mainstream" media never talks about.

Neither cleaning the sink nor cleaning the Middle East are the kind of job you can stop in the middle, either, just because they're so hard. If you give up, problems will only start to pile up all over again. The up side is that once you're done, you're unlikely to ever let things get so bad again. But only if you finish.

* If you're reading this, Mom: it's fiction. Really.

With an election looming, the anti-war Democrats and the mainstream media have gone into overdrive in their attempts to undermine support for the fight in Iraq. They lied about the conclusions drawn by all of America's intelligence services. They continue to emphasise the deaths of American soldiers while ignoring all they've done. They talk about splitting the country apart, thus ceding part to Iran, part to al-Qaeda and part to war with Turkey. They can't even decide whether they want to send more troops, or pull all our troops out  -- and if the latter, whether precipitously or on a predetermined schedule.

Above all, Democrats and the media are desperate to see Iraq as a repeat of Vietnam. The irony is that it can only become so if the Democrats win.

There was a brief, but intense, flurry in the media last week. "Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison," screamed the headlines after an 18 October interview with ABC news. But the truth is, the President merely agreed with columnist Tom Friedman that the current situation might be compared to the Tet offensive... not, as those on the Left want to hear, to the entirety of Vietnam. That will have to wait until a Democrat-controlled Congress refuses to fund the troops, followed by a humiliating US withdrawal and a wholesale massacre of those who had trusted us to protect them. If we're going to draw analogies, let's at least make them accurate.

The Tet offensive of January 1968 was a last-ditch attack launched by the Viet Cong during an agreed cease-fire. The VC simultaneously attacked some 80 towns, cities and military bases, hoping to overwhelm the Americans and rally the South Vietnamese to their cause. The attack was a miserable failure, from the enemy's point of view -- over 45,000 VC died, and the Vietnamese declined to give up their democratic government. The Americans stood strong, beating back the multiple surprise attacks with surprisingly few casualties -- about 2,500. The Viet Cong leaders unanimously saw the attack as a complete disaster, and prepared to negotiate a surrender.

And then Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, told his viewers that "The referees of history may make it a draw." He ominously predicted that the Marine base "Khe Sanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige, and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there." Cronkite sowed doubt about the future of democratic Vietnam, saying that "past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation." Cronkite continued, "To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion." The resulting wave of negative public opinion caused President Johnson to decide against running for reelection, and ultimately forced America to abandon Vietnam, after the Democrats took control of Congress and defunded the war. Congress even refused to send promised aid to Cambodia, where an estimated 1.7 million people died during the Khmer Rouge takeover.

That's precisely the scenario those on the Left want to repeat. CNN, for instance, recently aired what can only be termed a terrorist propaganda piece. In the film, produced by the enemy and "obtained" by CNN through intermediaries, snipers are seen targeting US soldiers for assassination at will. CNN added a helpful voiceover and interviews painting the "insurgents" as an unstoppable force, telling the viewers that "the deaths will continue" as long as US troops are in Iraq. Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has asked the Pentagon to remove all embedded CNN reporters in response to what some have called "a terrorist snuff film."

Obviously, the film only shows successful sniper attacks, but the impression is that all such attacks are successful. Unlike al-Jazeera, which airs similar propaganda pieces daily, CNN has the ability to reach -- and influence -- American voters... the real target of terrorist attacks.

Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) will head the Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats win in November. When asked how he planned to stop the fighting in Iraq, he replied, "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" The 73 members of the "Out of Iraq" caucus agree with his viewpoint. Representative James McGovern (D-MA) already has a bill aimed at halting funding for troops in Iraq. Even if they don't directly pull funding for the war, President Bush -- when not fighting trumped-up impeachment hearings -- will be unable to get a single bill through the Democratic House until he complies with their demands. The anti-war faction is not above taking hostages to get what they want.

And once they force US troops to withdraw from Iraq, their hopeful Vietnam scenario will be complete. Al-Qaeda and Iran will massacre innocent Iraqis, terrorising them into a reign of terror even worse, perhaps, than they suffered under Saddam. Iraq's oil wealth will fuel (no pun intended) a whole new generation of terrorists, with the means to attack targets all over Europe, Asia and America.

Hat tip to ALa of Blonde Sagacity for the CNN video.

Less than a week after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon, the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution invoking sanctions against the regime of Kim Jong-Il. Finally, the UN has "done something" to prevent him from building another one, right? In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, the resolution demanded "that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." It also required "that the DPRK shall eliminate its nuclear weapons and nuclear programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner," as well as "other weapons of mass destruction." Tough talk, to be sure. But talk is cheap.

The resolution also called upon all member states to impose a massive two-way arms embargo upon North Korea, prohibiting the sale or purchase of tanks, combat aircraft, warships, missiles and other big-ticket items. If all nations follow through, this might actually damage North Korea's economy, as weaponry is its only export.

That might get his attention even more than the ban on "luxury items," which, as US Ambassador John Bolton joked, might be "a little diet for Kim Jong-Il." But the resolution's call for every nation to perform cargo inspections was worded in such a way as to let any country that doesn't want to inspect North Korean cargoes too closely (say, for instance, China) off the hook. China does more business with North Korea than all other countries combined, supplying up to 90 percent of its oil and 80 percent of its consumer goods.

Unfortunately for all of us, UNSC resolution #1718 is all bark and very little bite, due to opposition from Russia and China. Nevertheless, the North Korean representative immediately stated that sanctions amounted to an act of war, storming out of the United Nations meeting. China then refused to impose even the weakened sanctions to which they had agreed. Of course, the Chinese government later made a show of cooperation by staging inspections of some trucks at a border crossing...but still refused to inspect cargo ships. Like the objections to North Korea's belligerence and refusal to participate in talks, the inspections were merely a ruse designed to make China look friendly and cooperative, while ultimately protecting North Korea.

The problem is that although the Chinese government may have some disagreements with Kim Jong-Il and his methods, they need North Korea to remain exactly as it is.

As long as North Korea is a harsh Communist regime under which most people live in abject poverty, China's own, slightly more moderate Communist government looks positively benign by comparison -- to American as well as Chinese eyes. While a repressive, militaristic dictator rules North Korea, China can expect friendly dealings with the United States. China fears any real change in North Korea for two reasons. On one hand, they fear that millions of starving refugees will pour across the border into an already overpopulated China if North Korea's government falls. On the other hand, democratic reform in North Korea might give Chinese citizens a place towards which to flee.

Those who think China will honestly help impose any sanctions -- much less harsher measures -- against North Korea have forgotten the long-standing relationship between those two countries. China insisted that the resolution include the line, "further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary," in an attempt to hamstring the United States. There is almost no chance China would refrain from using its veto to forestall action against North Korea.

With Kim Jong-Il possibly readying a second nuclear test, the United States and her allies have to take the situation seriously, even if China and the United Nations prefer to dither and delay. We may have to arm Japan, in much the same manner that Ronald Reagan deployed Pershing-2 missiles in Europe to push the Soviet Union into a military buildup that crashed its economy. We might have to seriously consider a preemptive strike, regardless of the outcry from dictators' mouthpieces. We can't outsource our national security to the United Nations.

If China will not actively help to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, we may have to choose between a North Korea armed with nuclear-tipped missiles or an angry China. At least China -- we hope -- can be reasoned with.

North Korea conducted what appears to be a successful nuclear weapons test, and Kim Jong Il has threatened to fire off a nuclear missile -- though it's not clear he has that capability -- if the US doesn't accede to his demand for one-on-one talks.

Iran is on the verge of building its own nuclear weapon, and got away with conducting a proxy war against Israel in Lebanon earlier this year using the terrorist group Hizballah as cover. You can bet the mullahs are watching our response to the North Korean test and threats very carefully.

In Iraq, our troops are helping the people build a representative government from the ground up, despite the best Iran as well as al-Qaeda can throw at them. A captured letter sent by al-Qaeda leadership (what's left of it) to al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before his death revealed that al-Qaeda is in a "stage of weakness, and a state of paucity." The same letter warned that violence aimed at Iraqi civilians (especially that directed against Sunni leaders) is "undermining al-Qa`ida's ability to win the 'hearts of the people'." The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, meanwhile, showed that Iraq is the linchpin in the War on Terror. Whoever ends up losing the fight in Iraq -- whether us or the terrorists -- will be severely damaged.

With all that to think about, what do Democrats and the media want to focus on as mid-term elections approach? Former Congressman Mark Foley.

Those on the Right are trying to deal with North Korea and Iran while fighting a global war against terrorists and those who support them. Those on the Left just want to talk about a witch-hunt against any Republican who heard that Foley was sending suggestive emails to former male pages over the age of consent, yet didn't kick him off Capitol Hill for being gay. Meanwhile, the Democrats bill themselves as the party of "tolerance" concerning "alternate lifestyles."

As difficult as it is to believe, there are more important events taking place in the world than a manufactured sex scandal in which no illicit sex even occurred.

The only contribution made by Democrats to the discussions on North Korea and Iran so far is to blame President Bush for upsetting the delicate state of ignorant bliss in which we lived during the 1990's. Oddly enough, the party that still complains about the perceived lack of a multilateral approach to Iraq insists that a unilateral solution is necessary for North Korea.

Bush is under attack for "allowing" the North Koreans to work on nuclear weapons, as though they began doing so only recently. The 1994 "Agreed Framework" called for North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons development in exchange for two light-water nuclear reactors. North Korea almost immediately violated that agreement by continuing to work on nuclear weapons anyway.

Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and instructions for building a nuclear weapon in 1997. In 1998, North Korea launched a multi-stage missile over Japan. In 1999, a Congressional report concluded that "North Korea's WMD programs pose a major threat to the United States and its allies," and stated that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East" than five years previously. Anyone who pretends that  North Korea was "contained" before President Bush took office is simply not serious about dealing with the danger posed by that country.

Yet that seems to be the Democratic party line concerning North Korea.

In 2003, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile." Pelosi will become Speaker of the House should the Democrats win in November. If her party had had their way, we would not have even the the limited missile defense capabilities we have today.

In response to the North Korean nuclear test, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), whose husband signed the Agreed Framework and then did nothing while North Korea violated it repeatedly, blamed "the failed policies of the Bush Administration." Senator Clinton is a likely Democratic candidate for President in 2008.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who was responsible for negotiating the 1994 Agreed Framework, opined in the New York Times that the agreement worked, despite its obvious failure. Carter claimed that President Bush is entirely to blame for North Korea "resuming" its quest for nuclear weapons -- and that they had good reason to do so.

"But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks," Carter wrote. "In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices."

Are these the sort of people who should be in charge of our government given the obvious dangers we face today? Is Nancy Pelosi the right person to back up President Bush as he faces down a nuclear-armed North Korea? Is Hillary Clinton the right person to take on a nuclear-armed Iran? Is the party which has consistently voted against every measure used to fight terrorism -- from information sharing among intelligence agencies to listening in on phone calls with known terrorists --  the people who should run our government for the next two critical years? Are the people who overwhelmingly favored granting Constitutional rights and Geneva Conventions protections to mass-murdering terrorist thugs the right people to lead us during a time of war? For that matter, should we put those who don't even believe we're at war in charge of fighting it?

As imperfect as the Republicans are, at least they're serious about dealing with the likes of Kim Jong Il, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and terrorist leaders. A Democratic Congress would concentrate on manufactured scandals, staged impeachment trials and tax hikes, while going back to what even Senator John McCain (R-AZ) called a "carrots-and-no-sticks policy" regarding our enemies. 

As tempting as it is to "teach the Republicans a lesson" by letting them lose control of Congress in the 2006 election, I'm not sure the country can afford the price of tuition right now.

The following is a copy of the email I sent to the Sci-Fi channel.

Last night, I watched the season premiere of Battlestar Galactica, and, I have to say, was thoroughly disgusted. The writers of the show have taken its previous anti-war, anti-Bush undertone to an entirely new level. The entire episode was nothing more than a justification of terrorism committed by some of the main characters, and I'm surprised and saddened that you would allow such a thing to air on your channel.

In the show, the humans who settled a new planet are now living under the Cylon occupation. Cylons control the human puppet government, and many of the main human characters have joined the "insurgency." They send people to perform "heroic" suicide bombings that kill innocent humans as well as Cylons, and shrug off the casualties as part of the war they're fighting. They murder humans who collaborate with the Cylons. The Cylons imprison innocent people for no good reason, often torturing them while the collaborators cover for the Cylons.

All of this is obviously meant to imitate and excuse the rhetoric and tactics used by the terrorists fighting our troops in Iraq. It's apparent that the show is a paean to groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq, and an appeal to excuse terrorism on the flimsy grounds that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The writers attempt to create a state of moral equivalency between the show's characters and the terrorists who murder US troops, Iraqi police and military, and Iraqi civilians every day. In order to accept such a moral equivalence, however, one must first abandon one's moral values.

Moral equivalence demands that one forego all understanding of right and wrong, and suspend one's sense of morality. Without the capacity to judge between right and wrong, people -- whole societies -- become unable to act. Criminals go unpunished, and those in need of protection go unaided. For instance, without the moral capacity to call the current ethnic murders by the government-sponsored militia in Darfur "wrong" and "immoral," the United Nations is unable to act to stop them. Due to moral paralysis, hundreds of thousands of innocent people may die, as they did in Rwanda. Is reducing the viewer's capacity to judge between right and wrong by portraying the murder of innocents as justifiable the intended goal of the Sci-Fi channel?

I cannot watch this show any longer. In fact, as long as Battlestar Galactica is on the air, I will cease to watch the Sci-Fi channel altogether. Although it may not have much impact, I will urge everyone I know personally to do the same. I will urge everyone I know on the internet to do so, and ask them to ask their friends to do so as well. Moreover, I will send copies of this letter to those who advertise on the Sci-Fi channel, to let them know what their money is buying -- no longer merely good entertainment, but thinly-veiled justifications of terrorism.

Thank you for your time.

A former viewer

In today's topsy-turvy world, perhaps the strangest thing is to see Democrats blasting Republicans for NOT gay-bashing. What is the world coming to?

Inexplicably, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is under attack for not preventing former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) from contacting male pages. The Left are in their glory over this "scandal," throwing accusations of "cover-up" just weeks before a tight midterm election. The fact that no evidence of wrongdoing on Hastert's part has yet been produced, however, doesn't even slow the Democratic attacks.

It seems that a lot of people in DC knew that Foley was gay, and that he was attracted to young men. After all, the people of his district are entitled to send whatever representation they want to Congress, if they felt he got the job done for them. Political correctness prevented anyone from making a ruckus over his sexual orientation, until the Democrats suddenly discovered a sort of militant asceticism.

Hastert was informed in late 2005 that Foley had sent a page some "overly friendly" emails, and that the page's parents wanted him to stop... but didn't want a big deal made of it. The emails were a bit creepy, perhaps, but not overtly sexual. In one, Foley asked the page -- a Louisiana native whose home had survived Hurricane Katrina -- for his picture. Hastert (who states that he had not been aware of the picture request) and other Republican leaders quietly asked Foley to cease and desist, and Foley agreed. Crisis averted, problem solved... right?

Not in an election year. Amazing, isn't it, that the story broke when it was just too late for the Republican party to remove Foley's name from the ballot?

Out of nowhere, it seems, a series of extremely salacious instant messages appeared, in which Foley and others openly discussed explicitly sexual matters. Actually, it wasn't nowhere -- copies of the "friendly" emails were first sent to the FBI and the St. Petersburg Times by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group funded by the America-hating Leftist multi-billionaire George Soros. When neither the FBI nor the media saw anything actionable in the emails, they appeared on a newly-created web site that had almost no traffic. When ABC picked up the story at the insistence of Foley's opponent, the far more disturbing IMs suddenly made their appearance.

Foley immediately resigned when the story broke, in sharp contrast to Democrats who have been caught in scandals. Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA), for instance, actually slept with at least one male page. He turned his back on then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill (R-MA) in disrespect as he was being censured for his behavior, which earned him a standing ovation from fellow Democrats. Studds was re-elected five more times before he retired.

When Foley resigned, Democrats like Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- who expects to take Hastert's job after the upcoming elections -- immediately demanded that Hastert resign as well, and that the entire Republican leadership be investigated. They insist that Hastert knew of "inappropriate contacts" between Foley and "children," and did nothing -- in fact, many accused him of deliberately covering up for Foley, without a shred of evidence to back that accusation. Yet in the cutthroat world of Democratic smear campaigns, evidence is a four-letter word, and outrage trumps logic. 

It's perfectly understandable that Conservatives and most Republicans would be outraged by Foley's grossly immoral -- even disgusting -- behavior. However, it's almost impossible to understand why the Left would be upset. How could those who champion "alternate lifestyles" and belittle those who dare judge others by religious or moral standards be dismayed by some dirty text messages? Whatever happened to all the champions of the "right to privacy" and the supporters of NAMBLA's (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) right to "free speech?" Where are those who were outraged by the Boy Scouts' refusal to allow gay Scoutmasters? In short, it's a calculated outrage manufactured for political purposes. Do they expect us to believe that they condemn Foley's actions, which were not, after all, even strictly illegal?

As far as the law goes, 16-year-old pages are over the age of consent in DC (and many states) -- thanks to Left-wing activists who want to drive the age of consent even lower. There is no law against sodomy -- again, thanks to Left-wing activists who have worked to "mainstream" alternate lifestyles, claiming that a "right to privacy" forbids the government from interfering in the bedroom activities of two consenting adults. Of course, instant messages and emails are not the same as sexual contact, so statutes against sodomy and age of consent laws wouldn't even apply unless it can be proved that Foley had actual sexual contact with pages. And -- again, thanks to the Left -- we know that oral sex doesn't count as sex, either.

What we see here is the difference between illegal and immoral behavior. Foley's actions were not strictly illegal, but were certainly stomach-churningly immoral -- but only to those who don't shy away from making moral judgments. In other words: what business do those on the Left have condemning Foley for doing whatever he wanted with whomever he wanted, as long as all involved were over the age of consent? Isn't that what the Left has been telling us all these years? Who are these new Puritans that attack Republicans for not denouncing Foley when they first learned of his sexual tendencies? It's all a political game designed to split the Republicans just a month before a crucial election. And, sadly, it seems to be working.

Which brings us back to Hastert. "No one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday," said House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Upon being informed of Foley's "overly friendly" -- but in no way sexual -- emails to a page, what should he have done? Censure Foley on the House floor for being a homosexual? Launch a major investigation into Foley's personal life, issuing a subpoena to every page with whom Foley had ever spoken, just in case Foley had done something illegal? A full-blown witch hunt is not the "proper" response to every questionable activity on Capitol Hill. Hastert cannot reasonably be held to account for Foley's actions.

With this year's election hanging in the balance, the Democrats will use any and every dirty campaign tactic to regain power. One can only hope that the voters will get sick of the underhanded trickery, and decide to send the Democrats a message. More than likely, though, the negative campaigns will suppress the so-called "values voters" -- mostly social Conservatives and religious Republicans -- by causing them to stay away from the polls in disgust. If that happens, expect to see more dirty campaigning in the future... as rewarding bad behavior only results in more bad behavior.

In April 2006, the annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" National Intelligence Estimate report was released to Congressional leaders. Both Democrats and Republicans had access to its findings, although -- because it contains classified information like operatives' names and methods -- the report was not made available to the public.

Yet while the Right wages war on terrorists and their supporters, the Left continues to wage war on President Bush. Instead of admitting that our own intelligence services disagree with their chosen position, the Democrats have continued to do everything possible to undermine public support for the Iraq war as well as every method used to stop terrorism. Their success in the 2006 election depends upon failure for America.

About five months after it was released, someone leaked a few choice -- but hardly representative -- sentences of the classified NIE to the NY Times and the Washington Post. "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat," screamed the New York Times, quoting anonymous officials. The Washington Post chimed in with, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight." Meanwhile, the main story on CNN's web site was, "Dems: Leaked Iraq report shows need for new direction." As usual, none of the major news agencies or Democratic politicians seemed concerned about the fact that classified information was leaked, as long as the information could be used against the Bush administration.

"The intelligence community -- all 16 agencies -- believes the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism," said Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called the report a "devastating and authoritative analysis of the Bush administration's failures in Iraq," and accused the President of following "a failed stay-the-course strategy that America's intelligence community has concluded makes America less safe." Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said that the "the April classified national intelligence estimate assessing the impact of Iraq on the global war on terror only adds more urgency to the importance of changing course in Iraq." Clinton also attacked "a rubber-stamp Congress that continually supports a failed policy in Iraq, and now, as we can tell from what's been leaked about the NIE, a failing policy in terms of containing, deterring and defeating the terrorist leaders and operatives in the global war on terror."

But that's not what the NIE says at all. In fact, it barely mentions Iraq.

The Democrats have apparently hung their collective hat on the following lines: "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. ... The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." They deliberately ignored the very next line: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

In essence, the latest NIE concluded that the aggressive global campaign against terrorism has weakened al-Qaeda, that terrorist movements -- while still dangerous -- lack cohesive leadership and strategy, and that the fight in Iraq has become a do-or-die situation for the terrorists. If we complete our mission there, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat. If, on the other hand, the terrorists can be perceived as having driven us out, radical Islam will flourish.

In other words, it says pretty much what members of the Bush administration, as well as most Republicans and Conservatives, have been saying all along.

Another line the Democrats declined to quote: "United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization."  Of course, why would they want to let the public know that a) al-Qaeda has been seriously damaged and that b) the threat of terrorism is real?

National security and the lives of innocent Americans are merely pieces in a political game. Democratic politicians, knowing that the report actually said something quite different, shamelessly lied about the report's conclusions just to attack President Bush, erode support for the fight in Iraq, and convince voters to put them in power in November. 

Even after the report's key judgments were declassified, they continue to lie about its conclusions. "[A]s the (National Intelligence Estimate) indicates, his failed policies have made America less safe and spawned terrorism, not decreased it," said Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, on 28 September 2006 -- two days after President Bush declassified the report. That's a bit like blaming the 1942 Allied invasion of North Africa (countries that never attacked us!), which doubtless resulted in increased German recruitment, for "spawning" more Nazis. Finney also said, "Democrats will be tough and smart, and will actually fight the terrorists, not leave them to plan future attacks."

Of course, Democrats won't fight them by tapping phone calls to and from known terrorists without asking a judge's permission, they won't fight them by allowing law enforcement agencies to share information, they won't fight them by interrogating them to find out what they know, and they won't fight them by preventing them from taking over Iraq to use as a base from which to control the Middle East. How they will fight terrorism, the Democrats have yet to say.

But at least we know they'll be "tough and smart," which will no doubt impress the terrorists.

The US taxpayers fund more than twenty percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. We house them in New York City, on some of the most valuable real estate in the world. We constantly defer to them on matters of international importance, even at the risk of our own security. Why do we continue to fund this collection of advocates for international criminals and dictators?

Recent speeches given by world leaders at the UN have brought the problems plaguing that organisation into sharp focus. The President of the United States made a speech about spreading freedom, democracy, human rights and reform, and received some polite applause. A Communist dictator from Venezuela and the mouthpiece of the Islamofascist theocrats who rule Iran made speeches attacking America, accusing our country and our President of horrible crimes, and received ovations.

"Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions," President Bush told the assembled delegates. "But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world." Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil" during his own speech, ostentatiously crossing himself, and complained that "it smells of sulfur still today."  Ahmadinejad of Iran ended his speech with a prayer for the return of the 12th Imam, asking that Allah "make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause." (Imagine the furor that would have erupted had President Bush ended his speech by praying for the Rapture and asking that God make everyone a Christian.)

Every year, thousands of lives are lost to the UN's corruption and vacillation, and untold numbers of crimes, large and small, are committed by its representatives. I'm not just talking about the reams of unpaid parking tickets issued annually by the NYC police, either. More than 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu died in Rwanda in 1994 while UN troops watched, prevented from acting by layers of bureacracy and a divided Security Council. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by Serbs in Srebrenica while UN observers, well, observed. More recently, UN peacekeepers watched as Hizballah terrorists launched rockets attacks against Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even reporting that Hizballah "fired from the vicinity of five UN positions" in July 2006. Indeed, the UN's legacy of inaction is exceeded in criminality only by its actions.

After President Clinton brought NATO in to stop the slaughter in the Balkans, the region was turned over to the UN, by whom it is mismanaged to this day. UN peacekepers ran forced prostitution rings in Bosnia and Kosovo until turned in by an American worker. UN peacekeepers have been involved in rape, slavery, child prostitution, black marketeering, bribery and food-for-sex scandals from East Timor to West Africa. In the biggest disgrace in history, France, Russia and China used their votes on the Security Council to prevent action against Saddam Hussein in order to protect oil contracts they had made with his regime while he brutalised the Iraqi people. Prominent and influential people in those countries and many more took bribes from Saddam to use their influence on his behalf. The scandal reached all the way up to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself.The largest criminal organisation in history -- that's what our tax dollars are funding.

Right now, genocidal attacks are taking place against blacks in the Darfur region of Sudan, carried out by the Arab Janjaweed militias, while the UN passes resolutions "deploring" the slaughter but doing nothing to stop it. Sudan, coincidentally, is a member of the UN's Human Rights Commission, along with Cuba, Libya and China. Iran has defied repeated UN demands to stop enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons, while Russia and China -- again protecting their business partner, as they did Iraq -- block the Security Council from recommending even the weakest sanctions. Iran, again coincidentally, is vice-Chair of the Disarmament Commission. After ten years of trying, the UN is still unable to write a resolution condemning terrorism, for fear of offending terror-supporting member states. In fact, the United Nations is unable to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose, which -- as written into its charter -- was "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

The problem stems from the UN's insistence on treating all member states the same, regardless of their record on human rights, terrorism, war or democracy. It is long past time for us to either change the United Nations or disband it in favor of a more effective council of nations. Either way, nations who do not practice democracy within their own borders should not be allowed to cast votes on any international actions. Pretending that delegates of governments that do not represent their people somehow speak for those people is a joke. Nations under any kind of censure for disarmament or human rights abuses should not be allowed to sit on, let alone chair, those commissions.

As long as we continue to pretend that the United Nations is what it should be, rather than what it is, we have no hope of reforming it. It's time to look at the UN's problems honestly and work to fix them, or else halt its funding and remove its headquarters from our soil.